"Witnesses were often sent into confrontational situations unaware of the danger, (37) but they did not question Covington's plan. Even when they may have suspected trouble, Witnesses were taught not to question decisions from the Watchtower leadership who claimed they had a direct line to God. Also, Witnesses saw themselves as instruments of God, and "God was fighting this battle." Witnesses believed that they should be used in whatever way necessary to advance the cause. Newton explained that Roscoe and Thelma Jones, whose case Jones v. Opelika would reach the Supreme Court in 1942, believed "if their convictions could be used to further the larger cause ... then their convictions must be part of Jehovah's divine plan."
TerryWalstrom
JoinedPosts by TerryWalstrom
-
24
Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."
by TerryWalstrom inthe outcomes of jehovah's witness court cases, to most first amendment scholars, the witness successes in court, especially the supreme court, were accidental.
legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the witnesses' methods for bringing about first amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching.
for example, legal scholar bernard schwartz noted that jehovah's witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed.
-
-
-
24
Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."
by TerryWalstrom inthe outcomes of jehovah's witness court cases, to most first amendment scholars, the witness successes in court, especially the supreme court, were accidental.
legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the witnesses' methods for bringing about first amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching.
for example, legal scholar bernard schwartz noted that jehovah's witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed.
-
-
TerryWalstrom
The following needs to be edited into making the statement chronologically accurate.
"In 1935, Rutherford asked Olin Moyle to take over a legal department that had been inactive since 1907 when Rutherford left the position to take over the presidency. "
1917 was most likely intended.
-
24
Legal scholars: JW court cases before Supreme Court were "accidental wins."
by TerryWalstrom inthe outcomes of jehovah's witness court cases, to most first amendment scholars, the witness successes in court, especially the supreme court, were accidental.
legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the witnesses' methods for bringing about first amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching.
for example, legal scholar bernard schwartz noted that jehovah's witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed.
-
-
TerryWalstrom
". . . the outcomes of Jehovah's Witness court cases, to most First Amendment scholars, the Witness successes in court, especially the Supreme Court, were accidental. Legal scholars have uniformly dismissed the Witnesses' methods for bringing about First Amendment cases, referring to their legal successes as mere unintended consequences of fanatical preaching. For example, legal scholar Bernard Schwartz noted that Jehovah's Witnesses, "who became involved in trouble with the law were only seeking to propagate their unpopular creed."
(3) Law Professor Charles Hasson queried that there must "be some basic difference within the tenets of the Witnesses' religion to produce this flood of litigation." His conclusion: Witnesses "trample upon the sensitive nature of modern society." (4) Legal scholar Louis Boudin speculated that civil liberties cases generally, and the Jehovah's Witnesses' cases more specifically, "are usually the outgrowth of temporary excitement, either general or local; and are frequently the result of action which is the reverse of deliberate." (5) To these scholars and others, the Jehovah's Witness had no legal strategy. They simply fell headlong into Supreme Court litigation."
_________________________
The above is a quote from:
The Jehovah's Witnesses and their plan to expand first amendment freedoms.
Journal of Church and State - September 22, 2004
Jennifer Jacobs Henderson
______________________
I am posting this because, in my opinion, it removes the high gloss shine from the Supreme Court decisions ruled in favor of what is glowingly called, "Freedom of Religion" by the Watchtower.
(Society attorney Oline Moyle, as we all know, sent a letter to Watchtower President, J.F. Rutherford, privately counseling him about bad language, drunkenness, and high living which caused the Judge to go nuclear in response. Rutherford had Moyle DF'd immediately and printed libelous things publicly seeking to destroy his fellow attorney in an extreme flame war. Moyle sued successfully and was awarded $30,000 by the court. Appeal after appeal knocked that down to $15,000 which is about two-hundred thousand adjusted for inflation. Moyle spent many decades trying to collect, btw.)
Because Moyle had been DF'd right in the middle of the Gobitis flag-salute case, Judge Rutherford stepped in to fill his shoes. Moyle had had only positive results until Rutherford took over and LOST the case, resulting in a nationwide wave of persecution against JW's.
________________________
When you have time, why not familiarize yourself with this information; it rewards careful reading.
http://www.manitobaphotos.com/theolib/downloads/First_Amendment_Freedoms.pdf
-
4
PROPERLY and HISTORICALLY understanding the way the term ATHEIST is used
by TerryWalstrom inin martyrdom of polycarp (written following polycarps death in the 160s ce) we find the explicit charge of atheism.
the angry crowds shout out away with the atheists!
in reference to the christians.
-
-
TerryWalstrom
- The trial and execution of Socrates took place in 399 BC. Socrates was tried on two charges: corrupting the youth and impiety (in Greek, asebeia). More specifically, Socrates' accusers cited two "impious" acts: "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new deities".Socrates was found guilty by a vote of 280 to 220.The philosopher initially offered the sarcastic recommendation that he be rewarded for his actions. When pressed for a realistic punishment, he proposed that he be fined a modest sum of money. Faced with the two choices, the jury selected death for Socrates.
"When Crito heard, he signaled to the slave who was standing by. The boy went out, and returned after a few moments with the man who was to administer the poison which he brought ready mixed in a cup. When Socrates saw him, he said, 'Now, good sir, you understand these things. What must I do?'
'Just drink it and walk around until your legs begin to feel heavy, then lie down. It will soon act.' With that he offered Socrates the cup.
The latter took it quite cheerfully without a tremor, with no change of color or expression. He just gave the man his stolid look, and asked, 'How say you, is it permissible to pledge this drink to anyone? May I?'
The answer came, 'We allow reasonable time in which to drink it.'
'I understand', he said, 'we can and must pray to the gods that our sojourn on earth will continue happy beyond the grave. This is my prayer, and may it come to pass.' With these words, he stoically drank the potion, quite readily and cheerfully. Up till this moment most of us were able with some decency to hold back our tears, but when we saw him drinking the poison to the last drop, we could restrain ourselves no longer. In spite of myself, the tears came in floods, so that I covered my face and wept - not for him, but at my own misfortune at losing such a man as my friend. Crito, even before me, rose and went out when he could check his tears no longer.
Apollodorus was already steadily weeping, and by drying his eyes, crying again and sobbing, he affected everyone present except for Socrates himself.
He said, 'You are strange fellows; what is wrong with you? I sent the women away for this very purpose, to stop their creating such a scene. I have heard that one should die in silence. So please be quiet and keep control of yourselves.' These words made us ashamed, and we stopped crying.
Socrates walked around until he said that his legs were becoming heavy, when he lay on his back, as the attendant instructed. This fellow felt him, and then a moment later examined his feet and legs again. Squeezing a foot hard, he asked him if he felt anything. Socrates said that he did not. He did the same to his calves and, going higher, showed us that he was becoming cold and stiff. Then he felt him a last time and said that when the poison reached the heart he would be gone.Jacques-Louis David, 1787 The Death of Socrates
As the chill sensation got to his waist, Socrates uncovered his head (he had put something over it) and said his last words: 'Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Do pay it. Don't forget.'
'Of course', said Crito. 'Do you want to say anything else?'
'There was no reply to this question, but after a while he gave a slight stir, and the attendant uncovered him and examined his eyes. Then Crito saw that he was dead, he closed his mouth and eyelids.
This was the end of our friend, the best, wisest and most upright man of any that I have ever known"
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/socrates.htm
-
4
PROPERLY and HISTORICALLY understanding the way the term ATHEIST is used
by TerryWalstrom inin martyrdom of polycarp (written following polycarps death in the 160s ce) we find the explicit charge of atheism.
the angry crowds shout out away with the atheists!
in reference to the christians.
-
-
TerryWalstrom
In Martyrdom of Polycarp (written following Polycarp’s death in the 160s CE) we find the explicit charge of atheism. The angry crowds shout out “away with the atheists!” in reference to the Christians. And, when Polycarp is brought before the Roman governor (proconsul) of Asia for final trial, Polycarp turns the accusation on his accusers (something more than “I know you are but what am I” is going on):
“Therefore, when he was brought before him, the proconsul asked if he were Polycarp. And when he confessed that he was, the proconsul tried to persuade him to recant saying, ‘Have respect for your age,’ and other such thngs as they are accustomed to say: ‘Swear by the Genius [guardian spirit] of Caesar; repent, say, ‘Away with the atheists!’ So Polycarp solemnly looked at the whole crowd of lawless heathen who were in the stadium, motioned toward them with his hand, and then (groaning as he looked up to heaven) said, ‘Away with the atheists!’”
What determines orthodoxy but the consensus of majority?
If all gods are acceptable and you believe in none but the one--your own--what do you expect?
On the other hand, as Ricky Gervais has said about being called 'atheist', "Of all the thousands of Gods we no longer believe in, I just don't believe in one more than you."
Poseidon, Thor, Athena, Zeus, etc. are NOT believed to exist in our own day and time.
We are A-THEIST (without those gods) by disbelieving or nonbelieving them to be real.
Yet, there is no social stigma connected to this.
Logically, the greater the claim, the greater the proof necessary to substantiate it. The burden is on those who would convince rather than upon those failing to be convinced, right? Well, not entirely!
A rather poor instructor might fail to teach algebra, and that doesn't mean algebra has failed:)
For those who believe Christianity is for SAVING THE LIVES of humans at odd with the divine, surely the only possible emotion for atheists is one of great pity, lamentation, and empathy for their plight as lost souls.
Nonesuch anysuch no such thing, however!
A great deal of disagreeable animus is forthcoming. Historically, the Catholic Church took a policy of torture as remedy for recalcitrant hold-outs! In Islam, beheading is a fit response to non belief in Allah. Of course, the old stand-by, HELL, is always waiting in the wings as well.
Perhaps I should offer my own views at this point.
What is the PRAGMATIC demonstration held out for non-believers as to evidence of brotherhood, acceptance, and love awaiting conversion? Isn't the choice offered a gun to the head, in effect, MY WAY OR DIE?
God offers to protect us from. . . HIMSELF!
At least, that's the distilled take-away offered by Christian evangelicals, is it not?
God will kill you, so, better get on His good side.
In Islam, God is seen as less of a fluffy, huggable, knowable character. To fear God is to cover yo' ass!
Submission TO THE WILL of Allah, is avoidance of consequences rather than a communion of familial
warmth and eternal comraderie.
Judaim doesn't seek converts, Christianity is starved for converts, Islam is armed to the teeth and on the hunt for NON-converts.
Are these the best of all possible strategies?
Let's rethink the automatic, knee-jerk disdain and contempt for ATHEISTS, why don't we? After all--everybody is an atheist toward the majority of gods. Aren't we?
-
25
'Tracing All Things With Accuracy' - How the Watchtower Society's Writing Department never makes a mistake
by jwleaks infrom the 2011 yearbook of jehovah's witnesses.. source: 'tracing all things with accuracy'.
tracing all things with accuracy.
jesus said that the faithful slave would be discreet in giving the domestics their food at the proper time.
-
-
TerryWalstrom
This is propaganda.
It is preparing plausible deniability.
I like the part about all the libraries used for deep research, but
I must have missed the part about the UNITED NATIONS library!
-
20
Q-tips and Coffee Filters helped me learn TTATT
by RedPillPopper inwell they didn't fully teach me ttatt but helped me on the way.............. first thing i do in the morning after waking up is grinding some nice coffee beans and getting the brew started while i take a hot shower.
after the shower i like to clean out all the nasty wax out of my ears with a q-tip (or cotton swab for those not familiar with that term).. while cleaning out my ears i would think about how nice it is we have things like q-tips and coffee filters that make life more enjoyable but at the same time realize that somebody somewhere is in a factory making these.. i can't imagine a child saying "when i grow up i want to work in a factory making coffee filters".
the people who end up really doing that as adults did not set that to be a life goal.
-
-
TerryWalstrom
The Utopian 'paradise earth' imagined by glorified factory bosses in the GB tower really amounts to consigning the faithful to live as ants in a colony; an eternal and indefatigable, labor-intensive crucible of mindless toil and a pasted-on smile.
-
33
what type of faith do you REALLY want?
by atheist_R_stupid ini find that when talking people who say they "used to be a jehovah's witness" they say words that show they have in fact, never been one.
it's like a man that worked for the post office for 30 years in a main major urban hub like chicago or new york... and you ask him, "in your last position, what was your rdo?
" and the man says "whats an rdo?".
-
-
TerryWalstrom
HOPE is a state of mind which says, 'Things are going to turn out just fine even though they sometimes don't." It is a positive outlook tempered by the understanding that real life doesn't always go our way.
FAITH is a state of mind which says, 'I am absolutely sure of this without a doubt.' It is an unrealistic and rigid refusal to prepare for contingency or consequences.
INTELLECTUAL HONESTY is the willingness to be wrong when viewing all the evidence, as well as the courage to change even the most treasured of one's deeply held 'truths.'
PRAGMATISM is measuring the truth of theories and beliefs by assessing the results of their application to real life. Results are what matter most.
In view of the above, I would endeavor to be an intellectually honest pragmatist.
-
18
Watchtower Accused of Intellectual Dishonesty
by wannaexit inwatchtower never learns.. i applaud dr. singh for speaking out and his open letter to watchtower.
http://jwalumni.org/2015/01/17/rama-singh-awake/.
-
-
TerryWalstrom
Intellectual honesty is the willingness to be wrong when evidence disproves your opinion or belief.
Intellectual dishonesty is unwillingness to allow complete evidence to come to light.
The dark, dark pathway is the road taken by the GB and their feckless writing staff.
-
44
rama singh WHAT HE REALLY SAID, so you men can stop lying
by atheist_R_stupid in"there have been repeated scientific challenges to the.
theory of evolution in the past, and the nonbelievers of evo-.
lution cite them as support for their case.
-
-
TerryWalstrom
Who exactly is this? "...people like you..."
